On December 15, 2016, a WaPo blogger reported: “In an interview with alt-right writer Mike Cernovich, Hyde said the channel had ‘nine months’ to decide the show’s future.”

The blogger of that piece, David Weigel, is obsessed with me. He snarkily name drops my book “Gorilla Mindset,” and reads my Twitter religiously. He knows I am not “alt-right,” and lies about me. WaPo has never issued a retraction.

We saw examples of this last night at the Darkstream. Seven times, a troll tried to call me a "white supremacist", which is something they picked up from the false narrative established originally by Jeet Heer during #GamerGate. Now, I know better than to bother pointing out to trolls and SJWs that what they're saying isn't true, much less argue with them; the object of the troll is to distract and to disrupt so I simply block them.

That is, by the way, evidence that the attempt to conflate the Alt-Right with white supremacism and neo-nazism has failed. Wikipedia now has an Alt-Right page; while it is a Richard Spencer-obsessed hit piece, it least it is no longer a simple redirect to the Neo-Nazi page. The fact that they feel the need to call me something other than Alt-Right, a political identity I readily embrace, suffices to show that their attempt to redefine the term was unsuccessful. If Weigel switches terms in his continued attacks on Cernovich, that will be further evidence in support of the observation.

Unlike SJWs, the media doesn't always lie. But they regularly lie, they always attempt to push a narrative that may or may not be in reasonable harmony with the truth, and they often invent nonexistent sources. Even those who were previously dubious now agree, after experiencing being in the media spotlight themselves:

I have always been a little sceptical of the right wing’s opinion about ‘fake news’ – the ‘mainstream media’s agenda’. A lot of people in the right wing community completely distrust what the mainstream media report and believe that the companies that are part of it (BBC, CNN, Channel 4 to name a few) are using their left wing agenda to bring down the right. Honestly, despite seeing what they mean after watching a few videos and noticing bias in some areas, I thought that everyone was over reacting a little bit. Because after all, there are plenty of ‘right wing’ news sources now that pride themselves on looking at news from a neutral perspective. I’m now deciding to detract my original thoughts because of my personal experience with Channel 4, a popular UK news outlet.

Note that she made the same mistake that everyone does, of thinking that they're going to be clever and careful, and that by doing so, they'll somehow magically avoid the fate of every sacrificial lamb who has gone before them.

I was careful and conscious of the fact that this could all go very wrong. I’d like to mention at this point that I was assured that it was going to be a ‘fair’ piece to ‘get my perspective’.

We arranged to meet to film soon after Christmas. We filmed for about 4 hours and I feel that I spoke very well and managed to share my thoughts on a range of topics. I like to think I’m quite clever and quite the blossoming businesswomen, considering my editor status at BPS so I did catch GH out on a few things she asked and refused to answer. I also made a special effort to not talk about anything I wasn’t completely knowledgeable about, so that it would minimise the chances of being used to make me seem dumb....

I feel compelled to write this to warn others that despite how much precaution you take, how clever you are and how nice the filmmaker is – you will get targeted. I was made to look bad (as were my on screen counterparts). I was told that this would be unbiased, I was told that my words would not be cut and edited and I was told that I would have to sign release papers. Which for the record, I did not. I wasn’t shown the tape beforehand as promised, either.

They always tell you that they just want to tell both sides and want to give you the opportunity to sell your story. They don't tell you that because you're so special and smart. They tell that to everyone... because nearly everyone falls for it. Seriously, what part of DON'T TALK TO THE MEDIA is hard to understand? Let me see if I can put this in very simple terms that anyone can grasp: DO. NOT. TALK. TO. THE. FUCKING. MEDIA. EVER.

You're not smarter than I am. You're not more articulate than Stefan Molyneux. You don't have a better handle on the media than Mike Cernovich. But I won't communicate with the media except in writing, Stefan doesn't talk to them at all, and Mike only talks to journalists on a extremely strategic and selective basis.

Don't dance for the media. Don't talk to the media. They are the enemy. Build your own platforms instead and bypass them entirely.

Hey Vox, is the Alt-Right that amorphous, I thought Milo was alt-right then he said he wasn't now Cernovich is not Alt-Right. Am I getting things mixed here? Were they never really Alt-Right? Was it always only you?

I thought Milo was alt-right then he said he wasn't now Cernovich is not Alt-Right. Am I getting things mixed here? Were they never really Alt-Right? Was it always only you?

Milo was never Alt-Right. Mike once said that he was, but I think he was thinking in "not a cuck" terms. They are both civic nationalists and therefore Alt-Lite. It's considerably less of an issue now that some of the Alt-White guys who were claiming to be the One True Alt-Right have self-imploded and Richard Spencer demonstrated the futility of embracing National Socialism.

I expect my interpretation of the Alt-Right will become the dominant one for the same reason it will supersede conservatism: it is in line with science, history, and current events. Unlike the others, I'm not trying to fit a square peg into a round hole to suit my opinions, I'm just describing the round peg that fits reality.

I worked for a television show in the mid-90's. It was entertainment based but a lot of my coworkers had worked for various news stations in the L.A. area and they were not shy in expressing their liberal biases. It's been a very long time since anyone in the media has even made the attempt at unbiased news coverage. In fact, they're proud that there efforts to promote their world view have been so effective.

When I was a kid, big cities all had 2+ local papers. You could usually count on one being the more conservative and the other being more liberal. Since then, of course, Big Media has made sure you're lucky to have one paper, so there's no diversity. Those papers are owned by a few conglomerates and mostly take their cues from that bastion of untruth, the NY Times. And we should never trust liberal grads of liberal journalism schools, who all write "I want to change the world and make it a better place" on their resume, to actually tell the truth about anything.

I remember being impressed when I realized as a young man that the papers in England, at least, made no pretense about having differing points of view. It seemed refreshingly honest, compared to the kabuki show here; and things have only gotten worse in the US in the decades since.

I do speak to journos occasionally. I have never been interviewed though. I can tell you that most journalists I meet are mainly hoping to survive the next round of job cuts. Means they're vulnerable and completely at the mercy of their editors. FFS the entire Sky News crew for Queensland consist of two young girls and an Iphone, who do their own leg work and editing and then send it off to HQ in Sydney.

I talked to one young journo not long after the election, and I asked if the people at his work had wrapped their head around the new paradigm. He said he thought some of them understood and some were upset. I told him white identity politics was inevitable and he agreed. I asked him if he was surprised by the result, he was, I then explained why I was not and told him to look into Infowars, Stefan Molynuex, Gamergate and Vox Day, Milo et al. I also told him to start his own Youtube channel as his job probably would not exist soon.

Be Deplorable, Not Afraid wrote:When I was a kid, big cities all had 2+ local papers. You could usually count on one being the more conservative and the other being more liberal.That's funny right there. At least in Seattle, you had the Outright, Eat The Rich, Communist paper (Post-Intelligencer) and the Responsible Corporate Citizen, Liberal Democrat paper (Times). Bellevue, on the other side of Lake Washington, had a cuckservative paper with a circulation of about 50,000.In the 90s, the P-I went out of business, and Times went full-on cultural Marxist.There was literally NO conservative perspective on the news available anywhere in the market. And I have to believe that Seattle was not unique in that regard.

I wonder Vox, do you think anyone has the firepower to beat your position, or is the skies a true no-fly zone?

I don't think it's about firepower. I think it's perfectly possible for others to better perceive, understand, and apply science, history, and the observation of current events than me. But I have not seen any indication thus far that anyone has come close to doing so.

I think we've seen, from Jack Murphy and John Wright, that the civic nationalists can't reasonably defend their positions anymore. They never had history, and as with free trade, events have rendered their theoretical arguments moot.

That's good advice on the media but most people have never been on TV and unless you have some experience with them the whole media thing can suck someone in at first or a few times. Of course the media plays on that to get an interview then heads to the editing room to completely twist the story. Most people don't have any experience with that sort of chicanery.

most people have never been on TV and unless you have some experience with them the whole media thing can suck someone in at first or a few times.

I understand that. That is why I am repeatedly telling people that. Think about it: why are they filming you for FOUR HOURS for a piece that will last 10 minutes? And you're just one of 10 different interviews....

Unlike SJWs, the media doesn't always lie. But they regularly lie, they always attempt to push a narrative that may or may not be in reasonable harmony with the truth, and they often invent nonexistent sources.

Sabrina Erdely had been pushing rape hoaxes for a while but she was reasonably careful about her facts before the frat rape story. She was however getting pretty loose with things when she did a story about "The Rape of Petty Officer Blumer".

To the extent that Ms. Erdely’s article implies that the Navy took no action to investigate the alleged sexual assault, the sources who spoke to RedState indicated that the article was categorically false. Ms. Blumer indicated to investigators that the reason she could not remember an assault actually occurring was that she suspected that she had been given a drugged drink, and accordingly a tox screen was taken which showed no traces of rohypnol or flunitrazepam, the most common date rape drugs.

Ms. Erdely attempts to paper over this somewhat large hole in Ms. Blumer’s story by noting that the tox screen was taken 18 hours after the alleged ingestion of the substance in question, and uncritically passing along Ms. Blumer’s belief that these substances only appear in urine for 12 hours...

Rohypnol and flunitrazepam leave metabolites in your system that can actually be detected by a basic immunoassay test for 5 to 21 days.

I think that after this story got no real push back from the Navy, Erdley thought that nothing but Kryptonite could bring her down.

It's the blatant nature of the lies here that really got to me. Fifteen years before TNR felt the need to flay themselves in public when the Stephen Glass story broke. Rolling Stone stuck by it for a long time and made no effort to investigate Erdely at all.

The media now lives by the saying, "a lie can be half way around the world before the truth can get it's pants on." And they think that is a good thing.

In his book, Disinformation, Lt. Gen. Ion Mihai Pacepa explains how the KBG would plant a false story far in advance to use later when it ran a disinformation op. Modern example would be the half of all US house wives suffer domestic violence during the Superbowl lie. It took years to track down where the original lie came from, all the while it ran its course.

A second rule the KBG followed was, if worked once it will work again. IE - lying about how they will conduct an interview, same scam successfully done over and over again.

I am not saying the media is KGB. I am saying they are second or third generations of people taught in its ways. Another point made in the book was the KGB's push to 'plant thousands of seeds' and then let them grow on its own. Throughout the 60s and 70s they made an effort to spread their methods in the West. NGOs and non-profits are not leftist by accident.

TL,DR - The planted lies, false interviews are intentional and the results of a greater scheme.

I had a thought, which I hope those of you with a greater background in the subject matter could elucidate for me: Was National Socialism the inevitable reaction to Russian Communism, as business and banking aligned with government in an attempt to maintain its influence and position within society?

If that is true, what does that bode for the U.S. and Europe as the left more strongly asserts itself across the social spectrum and companies become more converged?

I understand that. That is why I am repeatedly telling people that. Think about it: why are they filming you for FOUR HOURS for a piece that will last 10 minutes? And you're just one of 10 different interviews.... VD

One way that might solve this problem. Bring in your own guy or gal and record the interview. This way they can't twist what you say. You will have the evidence. Media people love to eat their own. Someone would be willing to show it on the same scale as the first person. If they won't allow your guy or gal to record, then they wanted to smear you anyways. Then refuse.

You'd think this would be an easy rule to follow. It's not complicated, like, "Only talk to the media if A, B, and C." Just don't talk to them, period. Simple. Shows how well they've been trained to flatter and cajole their way into convincing the target this time is different, I guess.

One thing that struck me after reading several accounts like this is that the approach often uses the same phrases. "I just want to help you tell your story." "We just really want your perspective." That's not an accident, or something the interviewer came up with on her own. That's training, applied for a purpose.

Vox has addressed this pretty simply. When they get their lie out to millions of viewers, you can get the truth out to, what, tens? Hundreds? You'll never come close to the audience size the media gets, and nobody's going to wonder about what that guy in that 15-second clip really said.

We used to play the media when we were younger. But we always knew that the only way to do that was to give them a more interesting version of the story they wanted to tell. Nothing short of divine intervention was going to make them tell a different story altogether.

Even if the reporter isn't being consciously biased, or the subject of the story isn't at all political, distortions and mistakes are inevitable. The childrens game of telephone is a great example of this. Now, once things get political and the reporter is steeped with bias, with the agenda and intent to defend their leftist worldview, and thus their ego, they will do ANYTHING to destroy you.

There's a video online with a title like "Don't Talk to the Cops." In it, a cop explains (paraphrasing): "If I'm talking to you, my purpose is to get you to reveal information that will incriminate you, if you've done anything wrong. No matter what I say, how friendly I am, that's why I'm talking to you. Now, I was trained to do this, and I've been doing it professionally for 15 years. Do you think you're going to beat me at this game? If you talk to me, I'm going to win. I'm going to get you to say something to contradict yourself, because it's not normal for people to have a perfect account of what happened at every moment. Then I'll have a hook to press you further, and pretty soon you'll be babbling out explanations and excuses and it won't be a friendly chat anymore." And that's all true even if you're completely innocent.

I figure talking to the media is the same way. They've been trained not just to interview you, but to convince you to do the interview in the first place, and to get you into a compliant frame of mind. Their only purpose is to get you to say things they can use to tell their story. If you really beat them at their game and give them nothing, they just won't use it at all, so there's absolutely no benefit to dealing with them except to prove you're a very smart boy.

Almost everyone is easily victimized by appeals to ego or vanity. That's all these interviewer-entreaties are, appeals to vanity and ego.

We must accept our weaknesses if we're to have any hope of routing around them.

Whether it's a catshit crazy young woman who manipulates a married man into compromising himself by appealing to his ego, as a means of pursuing her hobby of spreading chaos in others' lives, or a "reporter" who promises an interviewee the temporary use of The Megaphone so the interviewee can finally Let His Secret King be known to all, it's just one person playing another like a marionette.

In simpler times, those who realize they'd been manipulated could go back and gut their manipulator like a fish, problem solved.

Starbuck wrote:One way that might solve this problem. Bring in your own guy or gal and record the interview.

Great plan, and don't forget to have your other chum who owns a massive media empire broadcast your full unedited version in a way that gets the same amount of exposure to the same target audience as their hit piece.

We are 8,000 BC savages living in a world created by the coordinated genius of vast numbers of people. We understand but the tiniest fraction of this world, and do so exclusively through stories.

Today's campfire stories look different, but it's all the same. We have absolutely no idea where exists the line between truth and fiction because a rounding error off of ZERO is all we know from first-hand personal experience (and even large amounts of that is deleted by our herding-impulse emotional biases.)

Every one of us exists in this Matrix of illusion, and it is a sad joke when any of us insists we alone recognize all the mirages.

Even Mencken's overt, intentional bullshit was swallowed hook, line and sinker, and its acceptance remains long after he explicitly retracted it.

It's not what we don't know that is the problem. It is the VAST warehouse of what we think we know that just ain't so.

@38 I think the belief in anthropomorphic global warming is the perfect benchmark of this.

Anyone who believes in this "religion" has never studied the evidence and is placing "faith" in the media bs and the experts with their litanies "...97% of scientist agree..." etc. If something is true, ALL scientists believe it, not just the paid governments scientists relying on spinning a narrative to earn their living.

The savvy elites know these "true believers" can be filled with whatever bs they want to feed them (wage gap, 57 varies of gender, male and female being social constructs while homosexuality is a biological imperative etc... ) and leaves them free to concentrate on censoring and harassing the rest of us.

I know there was an old interview that had a marine made a national level reporter cry, I think it was the show "60 minutes" but I can't find any references to it online. Does anyone remember it?

When they get their lie out to millions of viewers, you can get the truth out to, what, tens? Hundreds?

Even Steve Sailor only reaches so many when he disproves things like "Illegal alien valedictorians". Without him only those who went to each individual school would know the lamestream lied.

because a rounding error off of ZERO is all we know from first-hand personal experience

Almost every time I have mentioned online that every DieVerse City has black/brown people who use ambulances as free taxis from one part of town to another, someone shows up and lists their resume as proof it doesn't happen. To which I reply with news articles of cases, with the regular counter of talking bad about travelers

I have blogged extensively on Sandy Hook and was approached by a woman who wanted to interview me for a documentary and promised it would be "fair" and "balanced". I looked her up; saw that the documentaries her company have done are "liberal" like PBS; and never even bothered to give her a reply.

Those who fall for the media's scam for an interview do it because they feel flattered and still see the MSM as relevant. They're not. The Alternative Media don't need the MSM to validate us.

Worth repeating:Seriously, what part of DON'T TALK TO THE MEDIA is hard to understand? Let me see if I can put this in very simple terms that anyone can grasp: DO. NOT. TALK. TO. THE. FUCKING. MEDIA. EVER.

BTW, I cannot see any evidence Spencer has embraced National Socialism (I seriously doubt any real Nazis would have listened to a speech given by (((Paul Gottfried))) at NPI). He utterly failed to follow this axiom however and is now the poster-boy of fake news for "Neo-Nazism". Cernovich actually raised as serious question about his invitation of The Atlantic to the NPI conference. If Spncer really did admit The Atlantic to the disastrous NPI conference, and is not an enemy fifth-columnist, he's not tall enough for the ride and needs to step down.

When the shooting starts (not if, kindly note), anyone associated with the fake-news should be regarded as an enemy combatant and immediately targeted. No mercy, no quarter.

One way that might solve this problem. Bring in your own guy or gal and record the interview. This way they can't twist what you say. You will have the evidence. Media people love to eat their own. Someone would be willing to show it on the same scale as the first person. If they won't allow your guy or gal to record, then they wanted to smear you anyways. Then refuse.

No, No, NO, you utter cretin! Seriously, what is wrong with you morons? What part of DO NOT TALK TO THE MEDIA do you not understand? It's not that hard!

You're not smart enough. You're not clever enough. You're not careful enough. You're not cautious enough. Every single thing you suggest has been tried and it has failed.

Seriously, what is your problem? Are you really that desperate for attention? Do you harbor secret dreams of media whoredom or something?

This is not a new thing, either. The Spike was published in 1980, and while the KGB is not a major player in journalism any more, the role played by gatekeepers in shaping the public is still the same.

Gun people have known for years that allowing a journo-list to come out to the range "just to tell our side of the story" is always, always a trap. Just because the journo-list with the camera crew is a cute little recently graduated girl means nothing, because the video editor and news editor are not.

CNN was caught lying out right in 1994 about guns to be banned. Nothing has changed since then.

@45 This same applies to arguments, frankly. No one is ever persuaded; if you are too articulate or your points overwhelming, all that happens is your opponent changes the subject. Don't argue with SJW's (unless trolling for enjoyment is the only purpose.) "Never try to teach a pig to sing; all you do is frustrate yourself and annoy the pig."

Anyone who thinks winning this battle rests on converting ones opponents is truly a fool.

The muddy middle of people will change their minds once the new Narrative is firmly on a roll. That happens in YOUR camp, not by getting a bigger megaphone. Your zealot-opponents will NEVER change their minds.

As in every conflict I can see, the real war is in establishing your own position. Next is exterminating the irredeemable cadre of your opposition (or letting them exterminate themselves, if possible, since doing so deprives them of any hope of winning at the moral level. The Left seems highly likely to follow this path.)

I cannot agree more with VD. If you're Alt-Right (or just Right), all those not explicitly Right are by definition passive or active adversaries.

Passive adversaries just bog you down and waste your time. Ignore them, they'll come around of their own accord (passively) if your side wins. But inviting active adversaries into your presence is identical to inviting your enemies' scouts to tour your front, flanks and rear echelons. It's utterly idiotic.

Yes, do not get into bed with the presstitute unless you have an ulterior motive. People used to have a hard time getting that my intention of engaging in the press is strategic. I've worked in it, I know damn well how manipulative they are.

In a former life I worked for Gannett Corporation. Anyone is an abject idiot who speaks to a reporter with any expectation to have their words and thoughts accurately reflected. While the media doesn't always lie, it is comprised almost exclusively of SJWs who do.

The death rattle started back at least in the Eighties and every long-term survival mechanism for print was known then. As you have pointed out many times, once any institution is converged it becomes terminal so the coming digital storm was ignored and left-wing advocacy rendered newspapers and magazine unreadable. Broadcast is all that really remains from that era and isn't long for it. Mass communication belongs to the, well, masses now and gatekeepers are easily bypassed. Why this jarringly obvious fact still is ignored boggles the mind.

Josh (the gayest thing here) wrote:You're not smart enough. You're not clever enough. You're not careful enough. You're not cautious enough. Every single thing you suggest has been tried and it has failed.

This is the reverse Stuart Smalley

Seriously! I hate to turn the thread into a SSH post, but that little mantra repeated everyday could drag a gamma into delta-hood.

I think there is one legitimate reason to talk to the media: troll them/discredit them. The 4chan solution, basically. Make up some story that is just too good for them NOT to dismiss, make it seem basically plausible and able to survive an absolute minimum of scrutiny, and laugh like hyenas as they report things that seem plausible to them, but completely obviously fake to anyone with two grey cells to rub together.

Of course, this should only be done with quite a bit of preparation beforehand, and under a false name. The legacy media is basically just a bunch of glorified "readers of stuff they heard on twitter" so as time passes they will become even less likely to actually vet any stories they get. Give them a bullshit story that supports things they already believe and that flatters them, and they will jump on it like a bitch in heat.

> The fellows at the gun store did that interview for Katie Couric's documentary and busted her attempt at manipulation. One of the rare examples of success.

And they got Rush, Hannity, Breitbart, and Drudge all on the case to do so. How likely is that for any of us?

> Don't argue with SJW's (unless trolling for enjoyment is the only purpose.)

The only possible point of having a "discussion" with an SJW is to get to the point where you can demonstrate to anyone else reading the exchange that they are liars. So if you must do it (yeah, I took the bait on Gab with an SJW last night) look for where they're lying, point it out, and bring it up early and often. You may convince a few people, though it's unlikely. And that's the best case scenario. It's usually simply not worth the trouble or time.

Can confirm. FWIW, I took this advice, but my friend who was pepper-sprayed while talking to the media had to learn for herself. She spent most of the week post-Berkeley riot putting a lot of energy into every interview she could get. Out of the 7 or so she did, only Stefan Molyneux, InfoWars, and RT aired. If you don't give them something to make you look bad, they simply don't air it. It's demoralizing and takes time away from more effective things during the crucial few days after a newsworthy event. Don't do it.

S. Misanthrope wrote:Can confirm. FWIW, I took this advice, but my friend who was pepper-sprayed while talking to the media had to learn for herself. She spent most of the week post-Berkeley riot putting a lot of energy into every interview she could get.

Although, she ought to pitch the interview roulette story to Breitbart. That would be a great longform news piece in itself. The documenting of what went into all those interviews, and then the end results of the interviews.

If you must speak to the media, always have someone on your side recording (if they object, refuse to go on the air), then immediately post your unedited version on your website and publicist it, so the difference between the two versions is obvious (and they are the ones shown to have twisted your words).

The "Don't talk to the Police" lecture available via YouTube is awesome viewing. IMHO must watch category. The take away from that lecture for this thread is Don't agree to a fight with a professional. Especially in a game that's rigged against you.

I think that a lot of people think they are smarter than they actually are. Some guy in the audience on Aussie media embarrassed a politician (maybe it was a media talking head) and the MSM absolutely destroyed him to the point of suicide in the space of a couple of days.

Seriously. At this point in the game I have ZERO empathy for anyone on "our" side that talks to the MSM. There is NOT A THING to be gained and everything to lose

Ah, there it is. The Libertarian jumps on the AltRight bandwagon 7 years after Richard Spencer launched his site. And now he continues his daft support of the traitor, loser, and queer voiced freak known as Mike Cernovich.

Ah, there it is, yet another nazi-larper pretending that "alt-right" is some sort of trademark, and that they own a movement, of which they are only a very minor and non-essential component, because one of theirs came up with a name.Fuck you Nazi-boy. Your little half-wit Goebbels doesn't own the name, and you don't own the movement.

Not a single one of those people who "handle the media well" are you. Those who do either have power over them (such that the editors live in fear of getting that person's stpry wrong, or they are friends of the machine. YOU are beither one of those, just like everyone else here, so SHUT THE FUCK UP, GAMMA.

@Cail CorishevNot sure whether he actually believes that the TV station down the street will be falling all over themselves to broadcast a detailed exposé, proving that you're actually NOT an evilracistxenophobicnazi, or just trolling. Either way, it's kind of sad.